I got a big surprise from the CEO of a supermarket brand when the low service scores in our Mystery Shopper research turned out to map to the stores with the best financial results.
And I’m delighted that Bruce Temkin has weighed in on this post — you’ll see his comments incorporated into the text.
This article is part of our Mystery Shopper Research Series and part of our Customer Experience Hub.
A Supermarket Brand in Malaysia
Decades ago, we were hired to conduct Mystery Shopper research for 11 stores of a popular supermarket brand in Malaysia.
Our job was straightforward: send Shoppers into the stores, observe and measure service across about 20 attributes, and then compile the results.
The Client had already selected their attributes in advance, while we added value by clarifying attribute definitions and scoring logic.
Three Stores Scored Lower
When we finished, a clear finding had emerged.
Three of the stores — in the bigger towns — had performed significantly worse than the rest.
Our Client contact was pleased with our report package and invited us to present the findings to the CEO — the founder of this discount-style supermarket brand.
After we presented our results — in a makeshift conference room above a warehouse — the CEO looked at us and said something I’ll never forget:
“Did you know that the three stores you scored the lowest are actually the ones that perform best for us financially?”
What I Learned That Day
I admit I didn’t have a good response to the CEO’s comment.
- Our findings told a service experience story
- The CEO’s data told a business performance story
Every reader can guess which story mattered more to the CEO. And for this program, I failed to connect the two.
The Tension That Remains
Here’s a question that this experience raises:
Should the CEO have made at least some of the improvements we had identified in those lower-performing stores? Or was financial performance the only answer he needed?
This is where Bruce Temkin’s perspective helps sharpen the lesson.
“I really like the article, as it sheds light on the misconception of the absolute belief that any and all improvements in customer experience are worthy of investment.” — Bruce Temkin
There’s a misconception that every CX improvement is automatically worth the investment. In reality, leaders must choose the few improvements that matter most in their specific context.
How I See It Now — 20 Years Later
If I could go back, I’d start by clarifying the true objectives with senior leadership — not just follow a preselected list.
Financial performance is always a driver for executives. We could have reviewed each of the 20 attributes up front to connect a business case and, where needed, recommend changes.
Up to that point in our Mystery Shopper programs, we had only worked with Clients who undertook the research because they cared deeply about service — and for them, that was reason enough.
That had lulled us into thinking that every Client valued the same things.
This Client Was Different
We had followed the instructions from our Client contact to use a pre-selected list of 20 service attributes.
Since that time, I learned that it makes sense to dig deeper and ask more questions about the research objectives…not just be an instruction taker.
Financial performance is always a driver for senior leaders — including this CEO. We could have reviewed each of the 20 service attributes in advance to better connect a business case.
For example:
- In the event of long queue times at the fish & meat counter, could placing another staff member there at peak times reduce wait times and allow the counter to turn over more sales more quickly?
It was never CX versus financial performance; the work should show how experience improvements drive the results leaders care about.
That’s the lesson I learned sitting at a makeshift conference table in the Kuala Lumpur suburbs.
Benchmarks: Compare Like with Like
Bruce Temkin says:
“What jumped out to me is the fact that benchmarks are inherently flawed. When you compare results across organizations (internal stores or external companies), the assumption is that customers (and their needs), employees (and their skills and needs), and capital (availability) are equivalent. And therefore they should all be striving for the same results. But those assumptions are flawed. No two organizations are identical.” — Bruce Temkin
In practice, that means favoring internal comparisons (or peer clusters like the three big-city stores) over broad benchmarks across unlike environments.
Closing Thoughts
That meeting was humbling, and it set the course for how I’ve approached CX ever since: by ensuring the experience story and the business story are never told apart.
And thanks to that Malaysia CEO, a lesson that is as relevant today as it was 20 years ago.
Thank you for reading!
I regularly share stories, strategies, and insights from our work across Contact Centers, Customer Service, and Customer Experience. If this resonates, I’d love to stay connected.
You can drop me a line anytime, or subscribe via our website.
Daniel Ord
[email protected]
www.omnitouchinternational.com
